That's not entirely fair to JPL. Whatever their "mindset" is, with it they have
developed technologies that have pushed the envelope and helped everybody else.
(Most recently Spacex with GFOLD but there are plenty of others)
--
Ian M Garcia
________________________________
From: arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx <arocket-bounce@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> on behalf of
Rand Simberg <simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Sent: Wednesday, October 6, 2021, 10:27 PM
To: arocket@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: [AR] Re: big rockets
If they don't, they'll be out of business, because their one-off robots will be
greeted by hundreds of others when they arrive. Just as the first astronauts to
get to the Moon The NASA Way in Apollo redux will be greeted by the concierge
at the Luna Hilton.
On 10/6/21 19:23, Robert Steinke wrote:
+1
When I was at JPL as Spirit & Opportunity were winding down and Curiosity was
winding up people would say things like we can't just do another Spirit &
Opportunity because we want capability X (like the ability to reach a specific
location) so we need technology Y (like hypersonic guidance or long distance
autonomous driving).
I would ask have you looked at the probability of success of a shotgun approach
of sending N Spirit & Opportunities where you only need one to succeed, and
compared the cost of that to the development cost of a brand new design that
you will only ever make one of?
People didn't like when I asked that, especially the people who had spent their
careers developing technology Y.
I think some universities and nonprofits will do amazing things when IMLEO
becomes (relatively) cheap, but I would not be optimistic about JPL making the
paradigm shift.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:17 PM Rand Simberg
<simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Decades ago, I was talking to people at JPL about massively parallel
exploration with mass-produced rovers. But they couldn't break out of the
one-off mindset. And imagine what we're going to do sending flocks of cubesats
with motherships to the ocean moons. Yuri Milner may actually be planning that
for Enceladus. I put a bug in Pete's ear about that.
On 10/6/21 16:33, Doug Jones wrote:
I wrote the following last year-
I think most people don't see the revolution that SpaceX's Starship will usher
in. Most of the extreme cost of those Mars missions was in the non-recurring
expense of building low mass bleeding-edge one-off hardware.
When you can put 100 tons into LEO for a few million dollars, most of that goes
out the window. Rovers will be bulky, have four times the mass, and look like
something out of Junkyard Wars. They can be built in groups of 5-10 for pennies
on the dollar.
Computer array? Build a 5x redundant system using standard rack mount hardware
and put it in a pressure can with tungsten shielding to get the single event
upset rate down to something that can be handled routinely.
Cameras? Get a few top-of-the-line mirrorless DSLRs, put them in another
pressure can with a good window, done. Sure it has ten times the mass of the
exquisitely optimized jewelry on Perseverance, but who cares?
RTGs? Just put huge solar arrays on the rover. Massive things, overbuilt,
rugged, with built-in compressed gas nozzles to blow the dust off as needed. A
vacuum pump feeds an oilless air compressor- or rather, two of each. Maybe a
robotic arm with a whisk broom. Or both systems.
Drive train? Baja Rally buggy with major parts machined down to add a little
lightness but not too much. Install boots over the articulated sections to keep
the dust out. Send the vehicles in pairs with winches and tow straps.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Much smaller university consortia, working with existing
smallsat builders, can go wild. With delta-V to (literally) burn, missions to
the outer planets won't take a freaking decade to get there, either.
Brute force all the way. It'll be glorious.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 5:05 PM Rand Simberg
<simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:simberg@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
Actually, it's available now, but only for subcribers:
https://www.thenewatlantis.com/publications/walmart-but-for-space
It will be out from behind the paywall in a few weeks.
On 10/6/21 07:38, Rand Simberg wrote:
I have an essay on this in the current issue of The New Atlantis. It should be
available on line soon.
On 10/6/21 06:28, Doug Jones wrote:
Perzackly. Who needs fancy-shmancy custom rad-hard featherweight liquid-cooled
vacuum-rated electronics when you can buy standard 19" rack mount packages, put
'em in a steel pressure hull an inch thick with a polyethylene liner to catch
the secondaries, blow the cooling fans through a flat plate heat exchanger, and
call it good?
We're talking _literal_ battleship construction.
On Wed, Oct 6, 2021 at 1:22 AM J Farmer
<jfarmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx<mailto:jfarmer@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>> wrote:
I think one of the points being overlooked, inadvertently or not, is the
sea change that the shear lift capacity StarShip will in have in size
and mass. To date, every payload has to watch every kg, every cubic
cm. What happens when you can throw another cubic meter, lift another
100kg mass at a problem? How much time and money will be saved when you
don't have to sweat that last one percent of your lift budget?
As Henry pointed out in an earlier thread about dealing with atmospheric
& water leaks, with reliable lift schedules, just lift enough to
replenish for several cycles while fixing the problem. What changes in
your planning when that supply run can be 50 or 100 tons of air or water?
John